John Ramsey – Another year of “moving on.”

[andreww]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-unsolved-case-is-dead-killer-still-at-large/

Please read the last sentence of this article.

I go back and forth and up and around this case all the time. Just when I think I believe a certain theory, a hole is poked, or another theory catches my attention.

That being said, John declaring that he doesn't want to know what happened to his daughter, has taken be aback once again.

Whaaaaaaat??? Doesn't want to know? Doesn't want someone punished, held responsible? He doesn't want to know the truth of why his precious little girl died a horrific and gruesome death in his basement??

That doesn't sit right with me, at all....REALLY!

Probably the most truthful thing he's ever said. He knows who did it and he doesn't want to hear the details. And the quote about JMKs arrest? "We were a little skeptical at first"! No f_ing kidding John! When he said "He looked like a nice guy" I nearly lost it! This guy???



I just hate how everything John does publicly these days has to be prefaced with this BS paragraph...

For years, Boulder police suspected the Ramseys killed their daughter, but in 2008, police cleared the Ramseys of any wrongdoing and issued an apology. JonBenet's mother Patsy Ramsey died of ovarian cancer on June 24, 2006, without knowing her name had been cleared.

Police cleared them? I think not. In fact last I heard the police still think they are guilty as hell.

 

[Red Viewfinder]

Yes, JMK, did not exactly look like the boy next door.

So many strange remarks.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-unsolved-case-is-dead-killer-still-at-large/

Please read the last sentence of this article.

I go back and forth and up and around this case all the time. Just when I think I believe a certain theory, a hole is poked, or another theory catches my attention.

That being said, John declaring that he doesn't want to know what happened to his daughter, has taken be aback once again.

Whaaaaaaat??? Doesn't want to know? Doesn't want someone punished, held responsible? He doesn't want to know the truth of why his precious little girl died a horrific and gruesome death in his basement??

That doesn't sit right with me, at all....REALLY!

Heyya Red Viewfinder,

"I don't know for sure what happened, and I don't want to know, really," John Ramsey said."

Isn't the 'qualifier' really, in an odd position.
Shouldn't the thought be expressed as a definitive: 'I really don't want to know'?

 

[Fides]

In March 2012 in the article above Ramsey said: "He was arrested, and we were, I guess, hopeful, but not - we were a little skeptical," Ramsey recalled. "What I realized was that this is going to be difficult. He didn't look like a killer. He looked like a nice guy. He was a teacher in an elementary school. I thought, 'Boy, that's not what I would have expected.' I expected a monster."

So, John Mark Karr was an elementary school teacher charged with possession of child before he confessed to killing JonBenet. With the apparent exception of John Ramsey, no one thought he "looked like a nice guy." Nice guy elementary school teachers don't get charged with child and flee to Thailand, home of the international sex trafficking industry. To everyone else, he looked like a stereotypical pedophile. In 2010, articles came out that JMK now refers to himself as a woman and allegations that he was recruiting little girls for a sex cult surfaced:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/john-mark-karr-man-claimed-kill-jonbenet-ramsey-resurfaces-time-woman-article-1.180468

Two years later John Ramsey talked to ABC about how John Mark Karr was not a monster? He clearly has zero curiosity about John Mark Karr, or he never would have spoken about him in this manner. If John Ramsey committed the crime he would have been delighted to paint JMK as a pervert who might have eluded the police. If a stranger/intruder committed the crime, John Ramsey would have been obsessed with JMK as a potential suspect, or at least informed himself about JMK's alleged disgusting behavior toward children.

It seems to me that in one little interview, John reveals enough for us to propose that he did not kill JonBenet, and neither did an intruder.

 

[andreww]

I honestly think that JMK caught the Ramsey's totally off guard. They told all that would listen that the crime was committed by an intruder, but the never expected that anyone would actually ever be arrested for the crime. Karr's arrest put them in a difficult position. They obviously knew he was innocent. I think the decision to act passively towards Karr was a public relations campaign. See how forgiving and nonjudgmental we are? Why can't people treat us the same way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[questfortrue]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-unsolved-case-is-dead-killer-still-at-large/

Please read the last sentence of this article.

I go back and forth and up and around this case all the time. Just when I think I believe a certain theory, a hole is poked, or another theory catches my attention.

That being said, John declaring that he doesn't want to know what happened to his daughter, has taken be aback once again.

Whaaaaaaat??? Doesn't want to know? Doesn't want someone punished, held responsible? He doesn't want to know the truth of why his precious little girl died a horrific and gruesome death in his basement??

That doesn't sit right with me, at all....REALLY!

There is a pronounced difference between what JR implies in that interview – that this is too painful to even know about – and what he writes in DOI. DOI contains details which illuminate most profoundly JR’s personality and capacity for deception. There are dozens of examples in the book, but I’ll mention only one here.

JR has maintained he never saw the autopsy. This he states in an interview. However, in DOI JR goes into ugly detail regarding JonBenét’s last moments at the hands of the Intruder whom he calls a pedophile. He references a scream (interesting) during an assault and that the pedophile was unnerved and strangled her in order to shut her up. He also claims that the head blow came last to make sure that she was dead. In order to prove his point that the head blow came last, he hires a Georgia state pathologist, Dr. Sperry, to write a report that the head blow came last. (BTW, this pathologist recently resigned over the claim that he developed a clientele, lawyers most likely, for whom he wrote reports during his working hours while employed by the state. A pathologist for hire.)

As much as he talks about not being able to face what was done to JonBenét, JR is calculating how to portray themselves in front of others via the media and to create an image of as evil a pedophile as ever walked the earth. He also calls this pedophile a creature, a monster, vile, etc. If one didn’t know anything about JonBenét’s homicide, one would believe only that this is a loving Christian father in deep relief contrast to the evil pedophile, and there is no way he could have been involved, as an accessory after the fact or for child abuse resulting in death. Of course, the GJ thought otherwise.

LOL, to us, JMK looks creepy. To JR, he looks nice. One can almost hear him muttering, "Dayam, I spent so much time portraying the 'evil pedophile' and they come up with this nice looking young man."

 

[otg]

March 27, 2000 (Larry King Live):

KING: Did you ever think -- of course, what can you think at a time like this -- why would someone send a ransom note to kidnap someone and then kill them and leave them in the same house if the purpose is to get money?
J. RAMSEY: Well, Larry, this person is a madman, is a monster, they don't think logically.
KING: Pedophile?
J. RAMSEY: We think it was a pedophile, we think it was a male. There are several key pieces of evidence that we think will lead us to the killer, male, pedophile.
We think a stun gun was involved, so this person either had a stun gun or had access to one. The number 118 has significance to this person, $118,000 was the amount in the ransom note. That was picked for a purpose, we don't know what the purpose is.
SBTC meant something to this killer. That was how the ransom note was signed. And this person was in Boulder, Colorado on December 25th. We're not looking for a needle in the haystack.
KING: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?
P. RAMSEY: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.
J. RAMSEY: We don't know.
KING: Have you talked to them about -- do they send you the autopsy reports?
J. RAMSEY: No, no.
P. RAMSEY: No.
J. RAMSEY: We've -- the police have not talked to us at all. We don't know what's been done.
KING: Well, they have questioned you, right?
J. RAMSEY: They have questioned us extensively.
KING: But they haven't told you anything about -- you have not seen the death certificate?
J. RAMSEY: No.
P. RAMSEY: No.
KING: You don't know how your daughter died?
P. RAMSEY: Well, we do.
J. RAMSEY: We do.
P. RAMSEY: From what we...
J. RAMSEY: She was strangled.
KING: That's the cause of death, strangulation?
J. RAMSEY: That's the cause of death.
KING: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?
J. RAMSEY: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.
​

Isn't it interesting that someone can call someone a "pedophile", while denying any knowledge that "any sexual activity took place"?

J. RAMSEY: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know.
​

...yet:

J. RAMSEY: We think it was a pedophile, we think it was a male.


​

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/27/lkl.00.html

 

[Fides]

I honestly think that JMK caught the Ramsey's totally off guard. They told all that would listen that the crime was committed by an intruder, but the never expected that anyone would actually ever be arrested for the crime. Karr's arrest put them in a difficult position. They obviously knew he was innocent. I think the decision to act passively towards Karr was a public relations campaign. See how forgiving and nonjudgmental we are? Why can't people treat us the same way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If John Ramsey's reaction to John Mark Karr was a PR strategy he was mistaken. It is just one more example in the Ramsey's wide ranging collection of Things People Whose Children Were Really Murdered Never Say.

 

[Lilibet]

If John Ramsey's reaction to John Mark Karr was a PR strategy he was mistaken. It is just one more example in the Ramsey's wide ranging collection of Things People Whose Children Were Really Murdered Never Say.

BBM

That has a certain ring to it for a thread title, along with "Things People Whose Children Were Really Abducted Never Say." Let me know if you start one!

 

[andreww]

I've always thought the reason the Ramsey's were hesitant to label the killer as a "monster" or speak of him with hatred was because the killer was Burke and they didn't want him to think they were talking about him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CherCher]

I've always thought the reason the Ramsey's were hesitant to label the killer as a "monster" or speak of him with hatred was because the killer was Burke and they didn't want him to think they were talking about him.


Well, according to the Larry King interview (#47) he did label the perp as a "monster. I think he said that to distance himself and PR and BR from the crime. We aren't monsters. Nothing to see here!

When JMK came along, and didn't look like a deviant monster, and was obviously mentally ill, JR knew this wouldn't fly. He empathized with the guy.

 

[CorallaroC]

I've always thought the reason the Ramsey's were hesitant to label the killer as a "monster" or speak of him with hatred was because the killer was Burke and they didn't want him to think they were talking about him.

Andreww,
As it pertains to this murder case, I have had similar thoughts which you just expressed. My own opinion is likely to set off controversy, but I'm going to say it anyway. (I feel strongly about this subject in general ok)

To deem something a "monster", "intruder", "invader", "evil entity" tends to make one assume or believe that something "sacred" has been "violated" by some outside evil force. But then whose responsibility was it to keep evil from harming the good. Arghh, we all know this is so hard to explain....

Ancient dilemma, but to offer help/understanding in modern terms, I would refer someone to Albert Ellis, REBT (rational emotive behavior therapy)

see the wiki below to understand my premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_emotive_behavior_therapy

(snip)
Precursors of certain fundamental aspects of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy have been identified in ancient philosophical traditions, particularly Stoicism.[9] For example, Ellis' first major publication on Rational Therapy describes the philosophical basis of it as the principle that a person is rarely affected emotionally by outside things but rather by ‘his perceptions, attitudes, or internalized sentences about outside things and events.'

link below, worth reading and digesting the whole thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_emotive_behavior_therapy#History

To explain where I am going with this, I cite Ellis/REBT to point out that human nature is such that it tends to scapegoat inwardly or outwardly, especially when overwhelmed.

I don't EVEN want to get into any debate about how various religions views about sickness or bad behavior. Yikes. Did the "devil make me do it" or did I catch the flu because I "sinned?" Either one of these beliefs becomes radical and dysfunctional when taken to an extreme.

For those willing to follow my train of thought: With this case we have a myriad of examples of problematic belief structures. Examples being the "facade of a perfect family". "facade of a successful businessman". "facade of the perfect beauty queen", "facade of the perfect Christian family", etc. In BR's situation, likely the acade of the "perfect son, of a successful father, as the father was (JR's father pilot wartime hero".

Then in addition to psychological factors, add on any of the innumerable religious sect beliefs - especially the ones PR embraced. Was her cancer an INVADER or and INTRUDER?, or did she go to the opposite extreme and believe herself to be unholy and unworthy?

I suggest that she may have thought in terms of both extremes. Having cancer is very very difficult to deal with emotionally. no doubt about it. Anyone who hasn't experienced it couldn't possibly understand. People tend to have more compassion for others with cancer than they would if they had to face it themselves.

Ok, so in a roundabout way, yes I agree that the R-parents probably have the deepest NEED to blame this MURDER OF JONBENET on some intruder. Yes, some forever UN-NAMED intruder. And no matter who it was, or how many MURDERERS actually did the deed -

Perhaps their own dysfunctonal/damaging beliefs will always override the reality of what actually happened that night in their home. But also, one the reasons why this case got so screwed up from the outset - remains screwed up - and still an enigma today almost 20 years later, is because.....

(kerplunk)

?????

 

[tezi]

I've always thought the reason the Ramsey's were hesitant to label the killer as a "monster" or speak of him with hatred was because the killer was Burke and they didn't want him to think they were talking about him.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RBBM: Very, very possible, in fact, probable.

 

[InstantProof]

I've always thought the reason the Ramsey's were hesitant to label the killer as a "monster" or speak of him with hatred was because the killer was Burke and they didn't want him to think they were talking about him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was my first reason to think Burke could be a suspect. If one of the adults did it, it sees too obvious to say "we forgive" etc. But possibly they are afraid he is watching or will one day watch interviews and will take their comments to heart.

 

[InstantProof]

There is a pronounced difference between what JR implies in that interview – that this is too painful to even know about – and what he writes in DOI. DOI contains details which illuminate most profoundly JR’s personality and capacity for deception. There are dozens of examples in the book, but I’ll mention only one here.

JR has maintained he never saw the autopsy. This he states in an interview. However, in DOI JR goes into ugly detail regarding JonBenét’s last moments at the hands of the Intruder whom he calls a pedophile. He references a scream (interesting) during an assault and that the pedophile was unnerved and strangled her in order to shut her up. He also claims that the head blow came last to make sure that she was dead. In order to prove his point that the head blow came last, he hires a Georgia state pathologist, Dr. Sperry, to write a report that the head blow came last. (BTW, this pathologist recently resigned over the claim that he developed a clientele, lawyers most likely, for whom he wrote reports during his working hours while employed by the state. A pathologist for hire.)

As much as he talks about not being able to face what was done to JonBenét, JR is calculating how to portray themselves in front of others via the media and to create an image of as evil a pedophile as ever walked the earth. He also calls this pedophile a creature, a monster, vile, etc. If one didn’t know anything about JonBenét’s homicide, one would believe only that this is a loving Christian father in deep relief contrast to the evil pedophile, and there is no way he could have been involved, as an accessory after the fact or for child abuse resulting in death. Of course, the GJ thought otherwise.

LOL, to us, JMK looks creepy. To JR, he looks nice. One can almost hear him muttering, "Dayam, I spent so much time portraying the 'evil pedophile' and they come up with this nice looking young man."

I haven't read their book but how can he say what happened to JB? Does he say he is speculating?

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I've always thought the reason the Ramsey's were hesitant to label the killer as a "monster" or speak of him with hatred was because the killer was Burke and they didn't want him to think they were talking about him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yepp ..same here..just like their efforts to minimize the injuries by denying the sexual assault plus being too quick to forgive the perp ..all very telling imo..

 

[Fides]

I've always thought the reason the Ramsey's were hesitant to label the killer as a "monster" or speak of him with hatred was because the killer was Burke and they didn't want him to think they were talking about him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww, I concur with your conclusion. I wonder if there is a pattern of speaking of the killer in print as a monster and being more forgiving on television - or perhaps more "monster" talk years ago and more forgiveness talk now?

Along that line, I mentioned a while ago that I thought the purpose of the John Ramsey/Barbara Walters rodeo that aired recently (November 2015?) was to speak indirectly to Burke and to his reputation - to tell him that when he was a child his mom and dad shielded him from all case information. In other words, he could not have saved his mother by taking the blame, because he did not have enough information about the accusations to do so.

I don't think the Ramseys were lying when they said they never discussed the case with Burke.

 

[Ellie9]

andreww, I concur with your conclusion. I wonder if there is a pattern of speaking of the killer in print as a monster and being more forgiving on television - or perhaps more "monster" talk years ago and more forgiveness talk now?

Along that line, I mentioned a while ago that I thought the purpose of the John Ramsey/Barbara Walters rodeo that aired recently (November 2015?) was to speak indirectly to Burke and to his reputation - to tell him that when he was a child his mom and dad shielded him from all case information. In other words, he could not have saved his mother by taking the blame, because he did not have enough information about the accusations to do so.

I don't think the Ramseys were lying when they said they never discussed the case with Burke.

Hmm... weren't John and Burke said to be re-enacting the murder over and over in a violent fashion? Like, imitating how the head blow was given? Other than this, though, I haven't seen much evidence of them being very open about that night with Burke (and the rest of the world).

 

[andreww]

Hmm... weren't John and Burke said to be re-enacting the murder over and over in a violent fashion? Like, imitating how the head blow was given? Other than this, though, I haven't seen much evidence of them being very open about that night with Burke (and the rest of the world).

I agree, even before the murder I'd don't think there was much meaningful conversation between the parents and kids, I don't see any reason why they would have any meaningful dialogue with Burke after. They said many times that they had shielded him from TV, Newspapers and magazines after the crime, so it's quite evident they didn't want any kind of communication on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eileenhawkeye]

My uncle died of complications from AIDS which resulted from sharing needles due to his Heroin addiction when I was a baby. I did not know the whole story until I was in college. There was sort of this cloud around his death where it was not to be brought up. I remember asking my dad how he died when I was in middle school and my dad got pretty angry and said something like "You already know what happened!" It was an extremely taboo subject, even to this day. So it is very easy for me to understand when John says they never talked about JonBenet's death. I think they made it so Burke would be extremely uncomfortable to bring her up. If every time Burke tried to ask a question, he got shut down or made to feel ashamed that he was bringing it up, he's going to stop eventually. I can picture in my head very clearly the interactions that would occur between all 3 Ramseys.